JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, M. - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, recommending that the revision filed by Majid be dismissed so far as ejectment of the revisionist is concerned, but the trial court be directed to assess the amount of damages afresh. 2. It appears that proceedings for ejectment of the revisionist were started on the ground that he had taken illegal possession on Gaon Sabha land. The revisionist filed objections. The trial court ordered the ejectment of the revisionist, and imposed Rs. 1,140/- as damages. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Majid filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, from which the present reference has arisen. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned D.G.C. (R.) on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that notice issued to the revisionist in Z.A. Form 49-Ka was defective, and hence the entire proceedings before the courts below are vitiated in law. The learned D.G.C. (R.) supported the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels, and have perused the record of the case. A perusal of the record shows that the notice issued in Z.A. Form 49-Ka to the revisionist does not mention the year of trespass and the amount of damages. The notice was, therefore, clearly defective. Proceedings taken on the basis of this notice were vitiated in law. It is, therefore necessary to remand the case to the trial court for fresh decision after issuing proper notice to the revisionist. 5. In the result, I allow the revision, set aside the order of the trial court and remand the case to it for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. Cost on parties.